Jewish Post, Indianapolis, Marion County, 3 August 1979 — Page 13

I'f ^ ^ -f k’ » p ' *.•*»"«<* *,#*** « *f If*

Freedom of the Press - All letters to the editor should be addressed to the Jewish Post and Opinion, 611 North Park Ave., Indianapolis, lYid. 46204. The letters should be typed and should be concise. Anonymous letters will not be printed. No letters will be returned. Short letters get preference.

Editor, POST and OPINION: In answer to Rabbi Norman Goldburg’s lengthy broadside attacking the concept of ordaining women, only one real criticism emerges. Whether ‘tis nobler to allow our female seminarians to continue under the misguided notion that they will be accepted wholeheartedly into the pulpit rabbinate or bar ordination to women as a public service? Rabbi Goldburg’s letter cautiously denies anything smacking of chauvenism yet the fact remains that both by argument and style, Rabbi Goldburg represents an antedeluvian sexism thought long put to rest. Can a young woman cope with a society only now ascending from sexual infancy? Bas- # ically that is her problem as it was the personal problem of all who were in the vanguard of consciousnessraising movements. Were the people ready for the freedom riders in the south? Our society has indeed always benefited by those brave enough to take a chance and perhaps suffer the consequences. Our great sin would be to judge the merits and sincerity of a seminarian by sexual standards. Quota systems not based on ability have always been anathema to Jews. Several issues of style should

not go unnoticed. While I may or may not agree with Rabbi Goldburg with regard to our “congregants perspective”, a sample of 47 responses would surely get thrown out of court. While at the seminary, I would have been highly insulted to be called a 25-year-old “boy” except by my closest and most revered teachers. Calling our female seminarians girls is degrading and of no intellectual merit. It’s not even cute. Nor are references to maternity anything but cheap shots. Rabbi Goldburg assures us that Rabbi Morgenstern, while tenured as president of HUC, did not condone radical innovation. While at the seminary, I was never taught to equate Morgenstern, as great a mind as he was, with “Torah from Sinai”. Illustrious presidents have preceded and followed, such as Isaac M. Wise, Nelson Glueck and Alfred Gottchalk. Lastly, since when have we looked to the Protestant denominations and Catholic Church for role models. Clearly, we have the right to affirm or deny our traditions based upon more “Jewish” criteria. RABBI BARRY ALTMAN Temple Beth-El 507 Fifth Avenue Daytona Beach, FL 32018

The Origin Of Protocols Aire Outlined; The Post And Opinion Missed The Boat

Editor, POST and OPINION: Dulcy Leibler’s article on “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” missed the boat in getting at the origin of this piece of literary dung. According to your writer, Montesquieu was Machiavelli’s interlocutor when the interlocutor was in fact Napoleon III. Maurice Joly, the author of the work from which most of the material for The Protocols was stolen, was an enemy of the “petit” Napoleon and hoped to diminish the pretensions of the emperor by using the weapon of satire. This is the story as reported in the publication “Socialism Answers Anti-Semi-tism,” a publication of the Socialist Labor Party of America, originally published in 1944 and published for the fifth time in 1971. “To the astonishment of rational people everwhere the ‘Protocols’ gained credence! The London Morning Post believed implicitly in their authenticity. Even the staid London Times asked: ‘Have we escaped a German peace ... only to submit to a Jewish peace?’ It sounded a veritable alarm and demanded a public inquiry into the authenticity of the ‘Protocols.’ Ford’s Dearborn Independent published them as ‘documentary evidence’ of a Jewish conspiracy. Taken aback by this unexpected reception, Jewish scholars were utterly at a loss. Disproving the ‘Protocols’ was much like

disproving Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland. “Then, quite suddenly, the real origin of the ‘Protocols’ was discovered. The subsequent exposure of the forgery is a story in itself and we shall do no more than summarize it here. Purely by accident, the Constantinople correspondent of the London Times, Philip Graves, came across an anonymous satire on Napoleon III, published in 1864. Struck by the similarity between this work and the ‘Protocols,’ he made a detailed comparison. It was revealed that the program for world conquest outlined in the ‘Protocols’ was substantially the same as that which, according to the satirist, was recommended to Louis Bonaparte by the ghost of Machiavelli. Of the first 110 pages of the ‘Protocols’ no fewer than twenty were an almost verbatim translation of the satire, and the remainder were largely a paraphrase. The paraphrasing was incredibly clumsy at that because the Russian translator (the ‘Protocols’ first appeared in Russian) left not only the French idioms and turns of speech intact, but also the French spelling of proper names. And this work, published in 1864 as fiction, reappeared in the twentieth century as historic! “Later the authorship of the French satire was traced to a certain Maurice Joly. An attempt was made to prove that

he was Jewish, that his real name was Moses Joel, and that he was a communist. This claim was made by the British aristocrat, Lord Alfred Douglas. But the records revealed that he was descended from a strictly Catholic family related to provincial nobility and that his father and grandfather were high officials. “The exposure of the forgery was printed in the London Times on Aug. 16, 17 and 18, 1921. But this was by nc ^ means the end of the Malicious ‘Wise Men of Zion’ fabrication...” It is to be hoped that this Socialist Labor Party pamphlet will further illuminate the origins of The Protocols and thereby make a contribution to exposing the fraudulent character of this antiSemitic trash. The quotation taken from it should be clipped by the reader for handy reference because The Protocols, unfortunately, will always be with us as long as we are obliged to live under the present social dispensation. Those readers interested in exploring what America’s original socialist party — the Socialist Labor Party — stands for are urged to write to the Socialist Labor Party of America, 914 Industrial Ave., Palo Alto, Calif. 94303. ROBERT E. NORDLANDER 333 Lopas St. Menasha, Wise. 54952

59 Prominent American Jews Are Aiding Enemies Of Peace

Rabbi Sternstein's Views, (Arlene Peck's) Are Opposed

Editor, POST and OPINION: I write in reference to the letter to Prime Minister Menachem Begin signed by 59 American Jews who have been labelled “prominent”. Although each of them may be well thought of in his or her own particular sphere of endeavor, this does not automatically qualify every one of the signators to bo expert in military matters of a country in which they choose not to reside. Oh yes, we have our “joiners”, and now we have our ’’signers”. Israel lives in a very precarious position today. Its national security is presently in danger. The P.L.O. has recently stepped up its terrorist actions — children, teenagers, and innocent adults have been killed. Almost the entire Arab world — except Egypt, Sudan, and Omar — is opposed to the EgyptianIsraeli peace treaty. Israel’s neighbors, except Egypt, still speak of war with Israel. A recent survey indicated that 50% of the Arabs living today in Israel — not on the West Bank, the Golan Heights, or the Gaza Strip, but in Israel — reject Israel’s right to exist. Israel can no longer live by

asking permission for each move it makes. Our “signers” accuse Menachem Begin of making the work of the “enemies of peace much easier”. Of this they themselves are guilty. How comforting to our enemy — engaged in a vitriolic campaign against Israel — to be able to quote “prominent American Jews”. The American government, especially, is looking for such support to promulgate its policy of continuously pressuring Israel into unrealistic concessions. Finally, the term “illegal settlements” is in itself a legal impossibility within a sovereign state. If there be a State of Israel, then there is no such phenomenon as “illegal settlements”. Legally, Jews are entitled to settle in any part of their own land. DR. BARRY DOV SCHWARTZ Rabbi Temple B’nai Sholom 100 Hempstead Avenue Rockville Centre, N Y. 11570

Subscribe!

Editor, POST and OPINION: Arlene G. Peck didn’t make it clear whether she was expressing her own opinions or those of Rabbi Joseph Sternstein in her article entitled “Rabbi Sternstein Defends Elon Moreh,” (P—O, July 13) but whoever’s ideas they were, they were very muddled, and downright wrong at many points. “There are Palestinian Jews and Palestinian Christians.” From this we can conclude that Mrs. Peck (or Rabbi Sternstein?) feels that the Jews are a “religious entity,” and that their nationality is determined by where they live - i.e., there are French Jews, American Jews, Palestinian Jews,... But then she (he?) goes on. “There are two states in Palestine today, the Palestinian Arab, state of Jordan and the Palestinian Jewish state of Israel.” Are the Jews a people/ nationality or a religion? You can’t have it all ways, to suit whatever argument you want to prove, at least without being logically - and intellectually -- dishonest. “There is no such thing as a Palestinian.” This statement, both wrong and impudent - wno are we to tell the Palestinians that they don’t exist - how do we feel when we

hear about the USSR saying that there are no “Jewish people, just French Jews, American Jews, Soviet Jews, etc. a’la the Classical Reform movement in the late 1800s -- was one of the statements that will forever haunt Golda Meir’s memory. It also will keep us from dealing with the Palestinian people who -- as the Jews before them - developed a national consciousness, a ‘national liberation movement’ -- ours is called “Zionism” -- and desire to be in control of their own destiny in their land -- as we do. The conflict that has to be addressed is the conflicting demands of two legitimate claims on the piece of land known in our tradition as Yisrael and theirs as Falastin. “The settlements are legal and the point must be made over and over!” Whether the settlements are “legal” is not central, despite the debate being waged in Washington and the New York Times. The central issue vis-a-vis the settlements is whether or not it is in the best interests of Israel - - politically or militarily -- to build them at the present time. Opinion within the Jewish community is clearly divided over this issue, as the front page of the July 13 Jewish Post clearly indicated. Ezer Weizman,

Israel’s Minister of Defense, BarLev (res.), seriously question whether the settlements will not be a liability in the event of war. “Anyone that has ever been to Israel knows from looking at the terrain what the necessity of such settlements is.” Are Mrs. Peck and Rabbi Sternstein military experts? No. But they can be expected to believe what zealous tour guides tell them. How can they rely on their (naive) impressions based on “looking at the terrain” if there is not unanimous sentiment within the military establishment of Israel? A final -- and very serious - criticism. Rabbi Sternstein is the president of the American Zionist Federation and as such has a great responsibility to clearly separate his opinions from those of the AZF. He can discuss Likud or Herut positions on his own time, but he should be careful when doing so as there are constituent to those attributed to him in the Jewish Post. And if he doesn’t clearly delineate AZF positions from his own, then he, too, “might be guilty of living the ‘big lie’,” in the memorable words of Golda Meir. ARIEH LEBOWITZ New York City, NY

Jewish Post and Opinion August 3, 19;